Ann: TEN successfully completes institutional ent, page-2

re: Ann: TEN successfully completes instituti...
From this announcement
"A bookbuild for the small institution entitlement offer shortfall was held through which entitlements not taken up by eligible institutional shareholders, and those entitlements that would otherwise have been offered to eligible institutional shareholders, were sold to other institutional investors at the Offer Price."

From the 6 December announcement
"the capital raising is a fully underwritten..."

From the AGM Lachlan Murdoch stated that the gang of 4 did not underwrite the offer because of the need for all investors to be treated the same.

The number of shares that the gang of 4 would be taking up under their entitlement are as follows:

Gina - 114,976,039
Lachlan - 102,764,702
James - 102,764,702
Bruce - 161,215,805

The things that are inconsistent from above are:
- Citi is being paid an underwriting fee, and yet the institutional investors carved up the shortfall of 58.45 million shares no taken up between themselves;
- the nature of a bookbuild is for investors to bid the price up rather than just paying the offer price;
- how are the retail investors being treated the same when they could not participate in the carve up of the balance of shares. That is at the AGM the ASA challenged Lachlan as to why there was not a shortfall entitlement, and the response was that the current structure was the advice they received;
- let's see what the announcement is next week as to if any of the gang of 4 took up more than their entitlement;

In summary, this smells of a snow job on the retail investors.

Not only do you have to watch out for the HFT manipulating the market but you also have to look for sharks in the water.